Anybody know where one can buy an industrial washing machine...asking for a friend.
I tghink you will find that so called industrial washing machines are the same as domestic machines though metal coloured instead of white and about 3 times the price!!
Anybody know where one can buy an industrial washing machine...asking for a friend.
I tghink you will find that so called industrial washing machines are the same as domestic machines though metal coloured instead of white and about 3 times the price!!
Bizarely there are "industrial" TVs for hotels etc, that look identical to the ones in retail stores, but are actually have different inners.
Why do people have difficulty believing that the US race is almost over ?
Postal voting starts in 5 days in N.Carolina where he is losing, without it it's impossible for Trump to win. And Trump's main policy is immigration, an issue only 6% of americans have as a priority.
Because you wrote off Trump several times during the primaries?
Only once after the last FOX debate during the primaries.
This is a rollercoaster campaign, but Trump was in a winning position for only 3 or 4 days in the last 3 or 4 months.
Yes it's true Yougov are a crappy pollster, however most polls are also suggesting the needle in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and New Hampshire is stuck in favour of Hillary regardless of the national position.
Not sure if anyone is following the German provincial election in Mecklenburg but an astonishing performance from AfD winning 21% and beating the CDU into third place. All the other parties have lost chunks of vote to AfD who are set to win 17 seats in the Land.
SPD still top the poll but this is a warning shot for both them and the CDU.
All other pollsters have showed the race tightening and Hillary leads by just 3.2% with RCP today, i.e. less than Obama won by in 2012 against Romney. Given Yougov had Remain winning EU ref and the general election producing a hung parliament Hillary should not be too confident
Well the last yougov national had shown a tightening of the race at 47-44 for Hillary and Trump.
But if being down by 3 nationally and down by 8 in Pennsylvania and 4 in N.Carolina with the same pollster on the same time period, says a lot.
For Trump to be leading in Pennsylvania he has to be leading nationally by 5 points, impossible to be done, and for N.Carolina he has to leading by 1 nationally, without N.C. it's impossible for him to win.
And Trump's advisors are so oblivious to the outer world that they thought his crappy immigration speech won him the election.
If someone wants to know what the people think they should go out, Trump will learn nothing in his Tower and his rallies, the King of Jordan goes out disguised as a taxi driver to find what his people think.
Emerson last week had Trump just 3% behind in Pennsylvania
I don't trust any single pollster.
All other pollsters since have Pennsylvania at a 6-9 point Hillary lead.
Even if the national polls have tightened, Pennsylvania, N.H, and N.C have not.
Trump's collapse was not uniform and neither is his recovery, so now Pennsylvania, N.H and N.C. are to the left of Michigan, Maine, Oregon and Iowa.
Trump has better chances of winning Michigan than Pennsylvania, Maine than N.Hampshire, Iowa than N.Carolina, but all of the replacements are smaller than the originals hence he is losing.
Wrong as Franklin was conducted after Emerson and has a 5% Hillary lead in Pennsylvania. Of course if Trump won Michigan and Maine but lost Pennsylvania and New Hampshire he would also probably win anyway
Only if he also wins Florida and Ohio and NOT losing N.Carolina.
Not sure if anyone is following the German provincial election in Mecklenburg but an astonishing performance from AfD winning 21% and beating the CDU into third place. All the other parties have lost chunks of vote to AfD who are set to win 17 seats in the Land.
SPD still top the poll but this is a warning shot for both them and the CDU.
Yes but the question is whether Merkel is listening. I'd go with a resounding no, but then they say she is thinking about not running next year.
Not sure if anyone is following the German provincial election in Mecklenburg but an astonishing performance from AfD winning 21% and beating the CDU into third place. All the other parties have lost chunks of vote to AfD who are set to win 17 seats in the Land.
SPD still top the poll but this is a warning shot for both them and the CDU.
The last opinion poll had:
SPD 27 CDU 22 AFD 21 LINKE 14 GRN 5 NPD 3 FDP
So they got the AFD, Green, the NPD and the FDP number right, they underestimated the SPD and they overestimated the CDU and the Left.
Not sure if anyone is following the German provincial election in Mecklenburg but an astonishing performance from AfD winning 21% and beating the CDU into third place. All the other parties have lost chunks of vote to AfD who are set to win 17 seats in the Land.
SPD still top the poll but this is a warning shot for both them and the CDU.
We tend to be terribly introverted and self-involved in this country. We're not the only, or even the most, euro-skeptic members of the EU.
I mainly read Die Welt and Der Spiegel, and even those outlets are increasingly critical of Merkel's position. It should be a wake up call, though I believe the existing coalition can continue on those numbers.
Freedom of movement with countries that have immigration policies designed to increase their populations would go down like a lead balloon with the anti immigration Brexiters as it would act as a back door route into the UK for the people they would like to keep out.
Really... lol
Immigration from countries that have strict points-based immigration systems... it's not quite the same as immigration from, say, Germany which has, um, not exactly a "points-based" system, but rather a complete open door and welcome mat to the entire Islamic world.
Anyhow, keep up the mental gymnastics. The cognitive dissonance required is going to get harder and harder
I'm quite impressed with the dedication to the Remain cause by several on here. Far exceeds the levels of outrage and negativity I've witnessed elsewhere.
But then I suppose this post could be considered by some to be bitter. Still, no capitals so maybe I'll get away with it....
I get the feeling that a commonwealth free trade and movement zone across six continents and a sixth of the worlds surface with Her Majesty The Queen head of it (as head of both the commonwealth and of the states concerned would make remainers heads explode
Not at all. I am all in favour of free movement and internationalism with culturally similar countries like the Old Commonwealth - and our European neighbours :-)
Not sure if anyone is following the German provincial election in Mecklenburg but an astonishing performance from AfD winning 21% and beating the CDU into third place. All the other parties have lost chunks of vote to AfD who are set to win 17 seats in the Land.
SPD still top the poll but this is a warning shot for both them and the CDU.
Yes but the question is whether Merkel is listening. I'd go with a resounding no, but then they say she is thinking about not running next year.
There is no reason for her to listen, she is still going to be reelected even with record low numbers for her party.
She has the social democrats in her pocket and the greens if she needs an extra party for her coalition.
Thanks to PR she will stay as chancellor for life, as long as the left and the right have lower numbers than the centrists.
Not sure if anyone is following the German provincial election in Mecklenburg but an astonishing performance from AfD winning 21% and beating the CDU into third place. All the other parties have lost chunks of vote to AfD who are set to win 17 seats in the Land.
SPD still top the poll but this is a warning shot for both them and the CDU.
Yes but the question is whether Merkel is listening. I'd go with a resounding no, but then they say she is thinking about not running next year.
Her party will be and may oust her for someone who will take a tougher line on immigration
Notably there may have been a late swing to Remain, but postal votes were sent when the polls showed a substantial lead for Leave.
YouGov one week prior had Leave on 51%. Pretty accurate it seems.
Some interesing comments on that eve of poll thread:
Richard_Nabavi Posts: 12,021 June 22 A bit of an over-reaction to these latest polls, I think. As has been the case fairly consistently, phone polls are generally better for Remain, but nothing here alters the overall picture that Remain seem to be ahead only by a smidgen, and it could easily go either way. Whilst I think it likely that the phone polls are more accurate that the online polls, because of the self-select bias in the latter, this is an untested hypothesis and one shouldn't place too much confidence in it.
So, whilst my central forecast remains a narrow Remain victory - perhaps 52% or 53% - I don't think we should be surprised by any result within a few points of that.
And Chameleon Posts: 821 June 22 FPT:
My anecdata is leaning heavily in one direction, the polls to other. I'm going to back my anecdata due to the fact that there are still significant doubts over the reliability and accuracy of polling. I'm going 52-48 for leave.
All other pollsters have showed the race tightening and Hillary leads by just 3.2% with RCP today, i.e. less than Obama won by in 2012 against Romney. Given Yougov had Remain winning EU ref and the general election producing a hung parliament Hillary should not be too confident
Well the last yougov national had shown a tightening of the race at 47-44 for Hillary and Trump.
But if being down by 3 nationally and down by 8 in Pennsylvania and 4 in N.Carolina with the same pollster on the same time period, says a lot.
For Trump to be leading in Pennsylvania he has to be leading nationally by 5 points, impossible to be done, and for N.Carolina he has to leading by 1 nationally, without N.C. it's impossible for him to win.
And Trump's advisors are so oblivious to the outer world that they thought his crappy immigration speech won him the election.
If someone wants to know what the people think they should go out, Trump will learn nothing in his Tower and his rallies, the King of Jordan goes out disguised as a taxi driver to find what his people think.
Emerson last week had Trump just 3% behind in Pennsylvania
I don't trust any single pollster.
All other pollsters since have Pennsylvania at a 6-9 point Hillary lead.
Even if the national polls have tightened, Pennsylvania, N.H, and N.C have not.
Trump's collapse was not uniform and neither is his recovery, so now Pennsylvania, N.H and N.C. are to the left of Michigan, Maine, Oregon and Iowa.
Trump has better chances of winning Michigan than Pennsylvania, Maine than N.Hampshire, Iowa than N.Carolina, but all of the replacements are smaller than the originals hence he is losing.
Wrong as Franklin was conducted after Emerson and has a 5% Hillary lead in Pennsylvania. Of course if Trump won Michigan and Maine but lost Pennsylvania and New Hampshire he would also probably win anyway
Only if he also wins Florida and Ohio and NOT losing N.Carolina.
Trump does better in Florida and Ohio and North Carolina than he does nationally in the RCP poll average
Not sure if anyone is following the German provincial election in Mecklenburg but an astonishing performance from AfD winning 21% and beating the CDU into third place. All the other parties have lost chunks of vote to AfD who are set to win 17 seats in the Land.
SPD still top the poll but this is a warning shot for both them and the CDU.
Yes but the question is whether Merkel is listening. I'd go with a resounding no, but then they say she is thinking about not running next year.
There is no reason for her to listen, she is still going to be reelected even with record low numbers for her party.
She has the social democrats in her pocket and the greens if she needs an extra party for her coalition.
Thanks to PR she will stay as chancellor for life, as long as the left and the right have lower numbers than the centrists.
Why do people have difficulty believing that the US race is almost over ?
Postal voting starts in 5 days in N.Carolina where he is losing, without it it's impossible for Trump to win. And Trump's main policy is immigration, an issue only 6% of americans have as a priority.
Excuse me! This from the person who said Trump had lost the S Carolina primary after polls had closed. Trump is now closer to Hillary than McCain and Romney were to Obama with the debates yet to come. Of course immigration is a major issue too otherwise Trump would never have won the GOP primaries in the first place
You can deduce only that immigration was a major issue with Republican Primary voters.
Why do people have difficulty believing that the US race is almost over ?
Postal voting starts in 5 days in N.Carolina where he is losing, without it it's impossible for Trump to win. And Trump's main policy is immigration, an issue only 6% of americans have as a priority.
Excuse me! This from the person who said Trump had lost the S Carolina primary after polls had closed. Trump is now closer to Hillary than McCain and Romney were to Obama with the debates yet to come. Of course immigration is a major issue too otherwise Trump would never have won the GOP primaries in the first place
Blame me for the exit polls overestimating Ted Cruz.
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
Freedom of movement with countries that have immigration policies designed to increase their populations would go down like a lead balloon with the anti immigration Brexiters as it would act as a back door route into the UK for the people they would like to keep out.
Really... lol
Immigration from countries that have strict points-based immigration systems... it's not quite the same as immigration from, say, Germany which has, um, not exactly a "points-based" system, but rather a complete open door and welcome mat to the entire Islamic world.
Anyhow, keep up the mental gymnastics. The cognitive dissonance required is going to get harder and harder
I'm quite impressed with the dedication to the Remain cause by several on here. Far exceeds the levels of outrage and negativity I've witnessed elsewhere.
But then I suppose this post could be considered by some to be bitter. Still, no capitals so maybe I'll get away with it....
I get the feeling that a commonwealth free trade and movement zone across six continents and a sixth of the worlds surface with Her Majesty The Queen head of it (as head of both the commonwealth and of the states concerned would make remainers heads explode
Not at all. I am all in favour of free movement and internationalism with culturally similar countries like the Old Commonwealth - and our European neighbours :-)
It wasnt much of a problem when it was our European Neighbours ie north European states, even Poland and Hungary.
It was the attempt to merge with southern Europe ie Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria etc. with Albania and Turkey in the pipeline that has screwed things up.
Just as well England are not playing someone as good as Iceland. The way they are playing they would have no chance.
England are what we will become if it is hard BREXIT, GB in the Olympics are what we will be if we keep some membership of the Single Market and keep Scotland
There is no reason for her to listen, she is still going to be reelected even with record low numbers for her party.
She has the social democrats in her pocket and the greens if she needs an extra party for her coalition.
Thanks to PR she will stay as chancellor for life, as long as the left and the right have lower numbers than the centrists.
Politics doesn't work that way of course. If the CDU/CSU do badly next year, Merkel will be under huge pressure to step down perhaps in favour of Ursula von der Leyen.
There's a huge amount of uncertainty - will AfD and FDP enter and re-enter the Bundestag respectively and what will they do ? Given you would have SPD, die Linke and the Greens as well, that's a mixed bag of opposition.
It's going to be a fascinating election and a very difficult one to call at this time.
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
I get the feeling that a commonwealth free trade and movement zone across six continents and a sixth of the worlds surface with Her Majesty The Queen head of it (as head of both the commonwealth and of the states concerned would make remainers heads explode
I have work to do today and there's a Star Trek marathon on CBS Action[2], so I'll keep this brief. The issue is not whether such a thing is desirable, the question is whether such a thing is achievable, and whether those who are in power are seeking such a thing. A CANZUS or Anglosphere or Commonwealth free trade area is unlikely because those in power in the countries are not seeking it (six agreements between six countries is qualitatively different to a single agreement between six countries). Canada, Australia, NZ, the US, Ireland et al are their own countries with their own ambitions, and to impose one's desires upon them is to confuse desire with reality.
In previous discussions you have insisted that the Republic of Ireland is de facto part of the UK (it is not), that the British Isles is self-sufficient in food (you presented your figures and they fell short[1]), and this is another situation where you present what you would like, or what is theoretically possible, as something that will or has happened.
This is the reason for the head explosion you refer to.
[1] It is acknowledged that it could be if it tried, albeit with a restricted diet and greater resources devoted to food production. And with respect to "meat", you came impressively close: about 90%, if memory serves. But "close" only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. [2] Freeview 64, if you're interested @Sunil_Prasannan. They've just done "Devil in the Dark" and are currently doing "Mirror, Mirror"
Why do people have difficulty believing that the US race is almost over ?
Postal voting starts in 5 days in N.Carolina where he is losing, without it it's impossible for Trump to win. And Trump's main policy is immigration, an issue only 6% of americans have as a priority.
Excuse me! This from the person who said Trump had lost the S Carolina primary after polls had closed. Trump is now closer to Hillary than McCain and Romney were to Obama with the debates yet to come. Of course immigration is a major issue too otherwise Trump would never have won the GOP primaries in the first place
Blame me for the exit polls overestimating Ted Cruz.
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Why do people have difficulty believing that the US race is almost over ?
Postal voting starts in 5 days in N.Carolina where he is losing, without it it's impossible for Trump to win. And Trump's main policy is immigration, an issue only 6% of americans have as a priority.
Excuse me! This from the person who said Trump had lost the S Carolina primary after polls had closed. Trump is now closer to Hillary than McCain and Romney were to Obama with the debates yet to come. Of course immigration is a major issue too otherwise Trump would never have won the GOP primaries in the first place
You can deduce only that immigration was a major issue with Republican Primary voters.
Not sure if anyone is following the German provincial election in Mecklenburg but an astonishing performance from AfD winning 21% and beating the CDU into third place. All the other parties have lost chunks of vote to AfD who are set to win 17 seats in the Land.
SPD still top the poll but this is a warning shot for both them and the CDU.
Yes but the question is whether Merkel is listening. I'd go with a resounding no, but then they say she is thinking about not running next year.
There is no reason for her to listen, she is still going to be reelected even with record low numbers for her party.
She has the social democrats in her pocket and the greens if she needs an extra party for her coalition.
Thanks to PR she will stay as chancellor for life, as long as the left and the right have lower numbers than the centrists.
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Not sure if anyone is following the German provincial election in Mecklenburg but an astonishing performance from AfD winning 21% and beating the CDU into third place. All the other parties have lost chunks of vote to AfD who are set to win 17 seats in the Land.
SPD still top the poll but this is a warning shot for both them and the CDU.
Yes but the question is whether Merkel is listening. I'd go with a resounding no, but then they say she is thinking about not running next year.
There is no reason for her to listen, she is still going to be reelected even with record low numbers for her party.
She has the social democrats in her pocket and the greens if she needs an extra party for her coalition.
Thanks to PR she will stay as chancellor for life, as long as the left and the right have lower numbers than the centrists.
A damning assessment of PR.
It is, under PR it's almost impossible to change governments from the ballot box no matter how crappy they are.
In Germany the governing party has lost an election only 2 times since WW2 (1998 and 2005), most government changes in Germany are due to switches within coalitions without the voter having a say.
It's one of the reasons why continental europe is doing so badly, there is little incentive for governments to do anything.
Dr. Foxinsox, indeed. £153bn borrowed by Brown during a boom, ahead of the 2007 financial crisis.
As for how Labour will adapt, I'd guess: 1) Spend more money anyway, increasing the deficit yet more 2) Blame the Conservatives for cuts when the blues are in power
Not sure if anyone is following the German provincial election in Mecklenburg but an astonishing performance from AfD winning 21% and beating the CDU into third place. All the other parties have lost chunks of vote to AfD who are set to win 17 seats in the Land.
SPD still top the poll but this is a warning shot for both them and the CDU.
Yes but the question is whether Merkel is listening. I'd go with a resounding no, but then they say she is thinking about not running next year.
There is no reason for her to listen, she is still going to be reelected even with record low numbers for her party.
She has the social democrats in her pocket and the greens if she needs an extra party for her coalition.
Thanks to PR she will stay as chancellor for life, as long as the left and the right have lower numbers than the centrists.
A damning assessment of PR.
It is, under PR it's almost impossible to change governments from the ballot box no matter how crappy they are.
In Germany the governing party has lost an election only 2 times since WW2 (1998 and 2005), most government changes in Germany are due to switches within coalitions without the voter having a say.
It's one of the reasons why continental europe is doing so badly, there is little incentive for governments to do anything.
Spain has PR and changes governments regularly as does Italy and New Zealand and Israel are the same
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Dr. Foxinsox, indeed. £153bn borrowed by Brown during a boom, ahead of the 2007 financial crisis.
As for how Labour will adapt, I'd guess: 1) Spend more money anyway, increasing the deficit yet more 2) Blame the Conservatives for cuts when the blues are in power
I suggest the Osborne route of finances, say publicly that you do A and then do B.
Like Osborne saying that he is doing austerity but instead doing nothing except some political targeting of his opponents.
Labour in power would probably promise hundreds of billions of extra spending, while only increasing the arts grants and the occasional local council budget.
Mr. HYUFD, isn't there a convention in Spain whereby the two major left-right parties let the other, uncontested, form a coalition if they get more seats?
I wouldn't hold up Italy as an example of an electoral system working. Nor Israel [Italy's had almost one government for every year since WWII, Israel has either a weak narrow coalition which can't do much, or a broad one that throws sweeties to tiny parties. Sharon, with Kadima, had planned to change it but when he had a stroke and the party got less support it (and another party I think would've backed change) lacked the electoral muscle to improve the system].
One thought for you all- the population of California is about 1/8th of the Population of the USA. A Clinton lead of 24% in California is equivalent to an overall lead of 3%.
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
Mr. HYUFD, isn't there a convention in Spain whereby the two major left-right parties let the other, uncontested, form a coalition if they get more seats?
I wouldn't hold up Italy as an example of an electoral system working. Nor Israel [Italy's had almost one government for every year since WWII, Israel has either a weak narrow coalition which can't do much, or a broad one that throws sweeties to tiny parties. Sharon, with Kadima, had planned to change it but when he had a stroke and the party got less support it (and another party I think would've backed change) lacked the electoral muscle to improve the system].
Italy did very well thanks to it's political instability, there was no government that lasted long enough to put taxes or spending and mess with the economy.
England in desparate need of a couple of wickets here.
Told you England short of runs on this ground.
One wicket down. Need another or two quickly now.
Need 5 wickets more.
4 wickets more
The stokes wicket was crucial. If he had stayed in for another 5 overs England would have easily got 350.
Wasn't watching earlier, was on the F1, but Stokes was clearly going for it when he got out. Our death bowling isn't going that badly, but I think they'll have a couple of balls in hand at the end.
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
That's a political judgement, not an economic one. It was unremarkable by international or historical standards.
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
That's a political judgement, not an economic one. It was unremarkable by international or historical standards.
Until the excessive spending by Brown is accepted by Labour, they will not win an election
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
The second term saw higher spending yes but the first term saw even less spent by New Labour than the last Tory government
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
That's a political judgement, not an economic one. It was unremarkable by international or historical standards.
The IMF report of 2003 will disagree with you. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3333125.stm "Gordon Brown has been warned by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that he risks breaking his own rules on government borrowing. "In its annual assessment of the British economy, the IMF said the government needed to cut its spending deficit."
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
That's a political judgement, not an economic one. It was unremarkable by international or historical standards.
Until the excessive spending by Brown is accepted by Labour, they will not win an election
Spending by Brown was not excessive, by historical or international standards.
The white population of North Carolina is 63.8% if Trump gets 60% of these he is still at only 38%. As for AA who are about a fifth of the voters in the state hahahahahhaha
Mr. HYUFD, isn't there a convention in Spain whereby the two major left-right parties let the other, uncontested, form a coalition if they get more seats?
I wouldn't hold up Italy as an example of an electoral system working. Nor Israel [Italy's had almost one government for every year since WWII, Israel has either a weak narrow coalition which can't do much, or a broad one that throws sweeties to tiny parties. Sharon, with Kadima, had planned to change it but when he had a stroke and the party got less support it (and another party I think would've backed change) lacked the electoral muscle to improve the system].
Not at the moment. Italy has tried FPTP too. Netanyahu governs relatively strongly. New Zealand has PR and stable governments
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
That's a political judgement, not an economic one. It was unremarkable by international or historical standards.
Until the excessive spending by Brown is accepted by Labour, they will not win an election
Spending by Brown was not excessive, by historical or international standards.
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
That's a political judgement, not an economic one. It was unremarkable by international or historical standards.
Until the excessive spending by Brown is accepted by Labour, they will not win an election
Spending by Brown was not excessive, by historical or international standards.
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
That's a political judgement, not an economic one. It was unremarkable by international or historical standards.
Until the excessive spending by Brown is accepted by Labour, they will not win an election
Spending by Brown was not excessive, by historical or international standards.
Keep telling yourself that.
I'm happy to keep having Tory govts.
Because they spend (and borrow) more than Labour?
Because they have to in order to clean up Labour's mess.
Because they ensure more employment.
Because they cut the levels of spending as a % of GDP.
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
That's a political judgement, not an economic one. It was unremarkable by international or historical standards.
Until the excessive spending by Brown is accepted by Labour, they will not win an election
If I recall correctly the taps were really turned on after an off the cuff promise by Blair to match the European average on health spending that he made without consulting Brown.
The second term saw higher spending yes but the first term saw even less spent by New Labour than the last Tory government
The taps were turned on in 1999 - for the first two years, Blair used Ken Clarke's spending numbers which gave the Conservatives very little room for criticism.
The problem was that public services were so atrophied by 1999 that Brown's largesse was the equivalent of trying to force feed a starving man a banquet. The money literally could not be absorbed and used so was wasted.
Even then the problems really started when, in 2008-09, the income side of the balance sheet collapsed. With falling tax revenues, especially VAT and Corporation Tax, the deficit quickly spiraled out of control. Without growth, the spending plans could not be met.
Now it seems the Conservatives are no longer interested in reducing the deficit or the debt and we remain with a huge commitment to debt servicing hampering progress.
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
That's a political judgement, not an economic one. It was unremarkable by international or historical standards.
Until the excessive spending by Brown is accepted by Labour, they will not win an election
Spending by Brown was not excessive, by historical or international standards.
Keep telling yourself that.
I'm happy to keep having Tory govts.
Because they spend (and borrow) more than Labour?
Because they have to in order to clean up Labour's mess.
Because they ensure more employment.
Because they cut the levels of spending as a % of GDP.
Isn't spending as percentage of GDP higher now than in any year of the previous Labour government pre crash?
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
That's a political judgement, not an economic one. It was unremarkable by international or historical standards.
Until the excessive spending by Brown is accepted by Labour, they will not win an election
Spending by Brown was not excessive, by historical or international standards.
Keep telling yourself that.
I'm happy to keep having Tory govts.
Because they spend (and borrow) more than Labour?
Because they have to in order to clean up Labour's mess.
Because they ensure more employment.
Because they cut the levels of spending as a % of GDP.
Isn't spending as percentage of GDP higher now than in any year of the previous Labour government pre crash?
I think there is a little bit of difference in regards to debt servicing costs...
Michael Deacon From Keith Vaz's "25 Incredible Years". 2002: the year he met Martin Johnson and gave directions to a man in a car https://t.co/PMCguO2Wn7
The second term saw higher spending yes but the first term saw even less spent by New Labour than the last Tory government
The taps were turned on in 1999 - for the first two years, Blair used Ken Clarke's spending numbers which gave the Conservatives very little room for criticism.
The problem was that public services were so atrophied by 1999 that Brown's largesse was the equivalent of trying to force feed a starving man a banquet. The money literally could not be absorbed and used so was wasted.
Even then the problems really started when, in 2008-09, the income side of the balance sheet collapsed. With falling tax revenues, especially VAT and Corporation Tax, the deficit quickly spiraled out of control. Without growth, the spending plans could not be met.
Now it seems the Conservatives are no longer interested in reducing the deficit or the debt and we remain with a huge commitment to debt servicing hampering progress.
Spending is though now closer to 40% of GDP than the nearer 50% Brown left
Robert Kimbell The AfD made history today. It beat Merkel's CDU party into third place at state parliamentary elections in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.
England Team started with no Alli...and now subs no Vardy (and Rashford not even in the squad). Basically all the players who look most likely to create and score goals.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
That's a political judgement, not an economic one. It was unremarkable by international or historical standards.
Until the excessive spending by Brown is accepted by Labour, they will not win an election
Spending by Brown was not excessive, by historical or international standards.
Keep telling yourself that.
I'm happy to keep having Tory govts.
Because they spend (and borrow) more than Labour?
Because they have to in order to clean up Labour's mess.
Because they ensure more employment.
Because they cut the levels of spending as a % of GDP.
Isn't spending as percentage of GDP higher now than in any year of the previous Labour government pre crash?
I think there is a little bit of difference in regards to debt servicing costs...
It's 0.5% less than the pre-crash peak. We went to ~46% in Brown's last year in office. As I said earlier, we're now spending ~4% on debt servicing, though it is coming down.
Mr. Sandpit, odd how PFI isn't mentioned much now, but it must still be costing a fortune.
PFI is why Brown should be excoriated, not the false charge that he spent "too much".
To talk about one is to talk about the other.
Quite - and the inability to understand this was the problem that undid (and seemingly continues to undo) Labour.
We talked a lot about the impact of Brexit on future GDP. My back of a fag packet estimate is that we lost around 9-10% of trend growth due to the crash. Our economy would have been north of £2 trillion p.a. all other things being equal (yes, I know bogus, but whatever).
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
That's a political judgement, not an economic one. It was unremarkable by international or historical standards.
Until the excessive spending by Brown is accepted by Labour, they will not win an election
Spending by Brown was not excessive, by historical or international standards.
Keep telling yourself that.
I'm happy to keep having Tory govts.
Because they spend (and borrow) more than Labour?
Because they have to in order to clean up Labour's mess.
Because they ensure more employment.
Because they cut the levels of spending as a % of GDP.
Isn't spending as percentage of GDP higher now than in any year of the previous Labour government pre crash?
I think there is a little bit of difference in regards to debt servicing costs...
It's 0.5% less than the pre-crash peak. We went to ~46% in Brown's last year in office. As I said earlier, we're now spending ~4% on debt servicing, though it is coming down.
So 10% of our spending is on debt servicing. What a disgrace.
I am disappointed that Osbo didn't tackle the deficit properly earlier...
Michael Deacon From Keith Vaz's "25 Incredible Years". 2002: the year he met Martin Johnson and gave directions to a man in a car https://t.co/PMCguO2Wn7
Anyone know what the demographics of this state are? Y0kel?
The white population of North Carolina is 63.8% if Trump gets 60% of these he is still at only 38%. As for AA who are about a fifth of the voters in the state hahahahahhaha
OT: wanted to share something I posted last night. The UK economy has grown by ~25% every decade for the last three decades (23,23,29). Since 2008, it's grown 9.3%. That's really poor, but we're tigers compared to our European peers:
Germany: 7.1% France: 3.4% Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
Blair spent less as a percentage of GDP from 1997 to 2001 than Major did and May is doing now, only Thatcher at the end spent as little as Blair did in his first term in the last 50 years
Indeed, but only if you ignore the substantial expansion of PFI in that first term. And of course Brown turning on the taps in the most massive and irresponsible way, the minute the second majority was secured in 2001.
That's a political judgement, not an economic one. It was unremarkable by international or historical standards.
The IMF report of 2003 will disagree with you. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3333125.stm "Gordon Brown has been warned by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that he risks breaking his own rules on government borrowing. "In its annual assessment of the British economy, the IMF said the government needed to cut its spending deficit."
2008 is a curious baseline. How does it work for other years? Ater all the EZ crisis was at its worst after our own crash.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
I wasn't trying to skew it (the EU is not my personal bogeyman) - it was for a discussion of Blair's achievements, hence the splits around 1997.
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
That's a political judgement, not an economic one. It was unremarkable by international or historical standards.
Until the excessive spending by Brown is accepted by Labour, they will not win an election
Spending by Brown was not excessive, by historical or international standards.
Keep telling yourself that.
I'm happy to keep having Tory govts.
Because they spend (and borrow) more than Labour?
Because they have to in order to clean up Labour's mess.
Because they ensure more employment.
Because they cut the levels of spending as a % of GDP.
Isn't spending as percentage of GDP higher now than in any year of the previous Labour government pre crash?
I think there is a little bit of difference in regards to debt servicing costs...
It's 0.5% less than the pre-crash peak. We went to ~46% in Brown's last year in office. As I said earlier, we're now spending ~4% on debt servicing, though it is coming down.
So 10% of our spending is on debt servicing. What a disgrace.
I am disappointed that Osbo didn't tackle the deficit properly earlier...
I can see it from both sides - its that dreary middle-aged reasonableness striking again. I think he did OK on the deficit. We at least escaped a double dip recession.
However, iirc, by the end of this parliament debt servicing will be our #4 budget line.
Comments
This is a rollercoaster campaign, but Trump was in a winning position for only 3 or 4 days in the last 3 or 4 months.
Yes it's true Yougov are a crappy pollster, however most polls are also suggesting the needle in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and New Hampshire is stuck in favour of Hillary regardless of the national position.
http://wahl.tagesschau.de/wahlen/2016-09-04-LT-DE-MV/index.shtml
Not sure if anyone is following the German provincial election in Mecklenburg but an astonishing performance from AfD winning 21% and beating the CDU into third place. All the other parties have lost chunks of vote to AfD who are set to win 17 seats in the Land.
SPD still top the poll but this is a warning shot for both them and the CDU.
BBC on CDU.
I see that former Bishop of Durham David Jenkins has died.
SPD 27
CDU 22
AFD 21
LINKE 14
GRN 5
NPD 3
FDP
So they got the AFD, Green, the NPD and the FDP number right, they underestimated the SPD and they overestimated the CDU and the Left.
I mainly read Die Welt and Der Spiegel, and even those outlets are increasingly critical of Merkel's position. It should be a wake up call, though I believe the existing coalition can continue on those numbers.
She has the social democrats in her pocket and the greens if she needs an extra party for her coalition.
Thanks to PR she will stay as chancellor for life, as long as the left and the right have lower numbers than the centrists.
Richard_Nabavi Posts: 12,021
June 22
A bit of an over-reaction to these latest polls, I think. As has been the case fairly consistently, phone polls are generally better for Remain, but nothing here alters the overall picture that Remain seem to be ahead only by a smidgen, and it could easily go either way. Whilst I think it likely that the phone polls are more accurate that the online polls, because of the self-select bias in the latter, this is an untested hypothesis and one shouldn't place too much confidence in it.
So, whilst my central forecast remains a narrow Remain victory - perhaps 52% or 53% - I don't think we should be surprised by any result within a few points of that.
And Chameleon Posts: 821
June 22
FPT:
My anecdata is leaning heavily in one direction, the polls to other. I'm going to back my anecdata due to the fact that there are still significant doubts over the reliability and accuracy of polling. I'm going 52-48 for leave.
A damning assessment of PR.
Vardy and Drinkwater on second half to save the day. Take off the Spurs bottlers.
Germany: 7.1%
France: 3.4%
Italy : -8.4%
Source: World Bank.
This is the fundamental issue Labour have to address. If trend growth has halved compared to the nineties, how do they adapt? Our current public spending is ~40.5% GDP compared to 41% in 2005. The difference is ~4% is now going towards debt servicing.
It was the attempt to merge with southern Europe ie Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria etc. with Albania and Turkey in the pipeline that has screwed things up.
A damning assessment of PR.
Is it? If the left and right have lower numbers than the centrists, shouldn't a centrist government win? - and wouldn't they win by more under FPTP?
Incidentally, the German polls called the state election pretty accurately, neither over- nor understating anyone particularly.
There's a huge amount of uncertainty - will AfD and FDP enter and re-enter the Bundestag respectively and what will they do ? Given you would have SPD, die Linke and the Greens as well, that's a mixed bag of opposition.
It's going to be a fascinating election and a very difficult one to call at this time.
Also worth looking at it per capits...
In previous discussions you have insisted that the Republic of Ireland is de facto part of the UK (it is not), that the British Isles is self-sufficient in food (you presented your figures and they fell short[1]), and this is another situation where you present what you would like, or what is theoretically possible, as something that will or has happened.
This is the reason for the head explosion you refer to.
[1] It is acknowledged that it could be if it tried, albeit with a restricted diet and greater resources devoted to food production. And with respect to "meat", you came impressively close: about 90%, if memory serves. But "close" only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades.
[2] Freeview 64, if you're interested @Sunil_Prasannan. They've just done "Devil in the Dark" and are currently doing "Mirror, Mirror"
I was making the point that the UK had 15 years of uninterrupted growth from 1992-2007, which is (I think!) unprecedented. Blair was able to deliver based on an ahistorical period of benign economic conditions, with the IT revolution in full swing.
The per capita numbers:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2015&locations=GB-FR-DE-IT&start=1960
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/772475603362549760
But this is an own goal which couldn't be missed.
A deficit considerably larger than our continental cousins (Spain excluded)
Oh well, 4-1 isn't a bad series.
In Germany the governing party has lost an election only 2 times since WW2 (1998 and 2005), most government changes in Germany are due to switches within coalitions without the voter having a say.
It's one of the reasons why continental europe is doing so badly, there is little incentive for governments to do anything.
As for how Labour will adapt, I'd guess:
1) Spend more money anyway, increasing the deficit yet more
2) Blame the Conservatives for cuts when the blues are in power
Like Osborne saying that he is doing austerity but instead doing nothing except some political targeting of his opponents.
Labour in power would probably promise hundreds of billions of extra spending, while only increasing the arts grants and the occasional local council budget.
I wouldn't hold up Italy as an example of an electoral system working. Nor Israel [Italy's had almost one government for every year since WWII, Israel has either a weak narrow coalition which can't do much, or a broad one that throws sweeties to tiny parties. Sharon, with Kadima, had planned to change it but when he had a stroke and the party got less support it (and another party I think would've backed change) lacked the electoral muscle to improve the system].
Anyway, eyes are going fuzzy, so I'm off. In case anyone missed it earlier, my post-race ramble is up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/italy-post-race-analysis-2016.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3333125.stm
"Gordon Brown has been warned by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that he risks breaking his own rules on government borrowing.
"In its annual assessment of the British economy, the IMF said the government needed to cut its spending deficit."
Just read this superb 2015 exposé of McDonnell/Corbyn's shameless claims not to be pro-IRA. h/t @BernardMcEldown https://t.co/vp3ycI1W3u
The white population of North Carolina is 63.8% if Trump gets 60% of these he is still at only 38%.
As for AA who are about a fifth of the voters in the state hahahahahhaha
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/17/the-republican-myth-of-the-untapped-white-voter.html
I'm happy to keep having Tory govts.
Because they ensure more employment.
Because they cut the levels of spending as a % of GDP.
The problem was that public services were so atrophied by 1999 that Brown's largesse was the equivalent of trying to force feed a starving man a banquet. The money literally could not be absorbed and used so was wasted.
Even then the problems really started when, in 2008-09, the income side of the balance sheet collapsed. With falling tax revenues, especially VAT and Corporation Tax, the deficit quickly spiraled out of control. Without growth, the spending plans could not be met.
Now it seems the Conservatives are no longer interested in reducing the deficit or the debt and we remain with a huge commitment to debt servicing hampering progress.
You are right the use of PFI was a disaster for the country.
From Keith Vaz's "25 Incredible Years". 2002: the year he met Martin Johnson and gave directions to a man in a car https://t.co/PMCguO2Wn7
The AfD made history today. It beat Merkel's CDU party into third place at state parliamentary elections in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.
I am disappointed that Osbo didn't tackle the deficit properly earlier...
Do these elections actually matter? Will the elected officials have any real power?
However, iirc, by the end of this parliament debt servicing will be our #4 budget line.